Not sure the differences you articulate have anything to do with
public and private, Daniel. It's about the different
structures. I've seen very loose corporate add-on events and
very productive and long-lived action (spanning years and
continents) come from open public conferences. So id say
structure matters much more than setting.Â
On Friday, October 17, 2014, Daniel Mezick via OSList
<[email protected]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>>
wrote:
Greetings Christine,
Thanks for your detailed reply. I must admit, I have no
experience whatsoever with doing quasi-public OST events
arranged for guilds, industry-associations and the like. I'm
clueless!
As such, my opinion does not have much (if any) validity
about those use cases. I do have some theories however, and I
hope I can ask some questions about OST for guilds & industry
associations...
I see it like this:
(1) At one extreme end of the spectrum, there is the very
private, business-org-specific event. A kind of big-family
system.
(2) At the other extreme, there is the totally public
conference that anyone can attend, if they pay the money...
* It is an event that has some Open Space of varying
quality, in 1/2 day, full day or multiple day formats.
* It may of may not have a Sponsor, it may of may not
have Proceedings. It may or may not have posters on
the wall. If it has Proceedings at all, they are
often late.
* "Agile" conferences are commonly at found at this end
of the range.
My theory is that quasi-public OST events for and with
guilds, industry associations and the like lie somewhere in
the middle of these two extremes. And I can certainly imagine
(theorize) how these events take on the look, feel, tone,
temp and flavor of the very private, business-org-specific
event. They might even effectively BE private events. It's
not like anyone with the fee (if any) can just waltz into the
meeting right?
And so, for now, I want to set these quasi-public OST events
aside, and/or characterize them as private events. Is that OK?
And so, referring to (1) and (2) above, I continue to see
very huge differences between these two ways to use Open Space.
Like, the difference between Night and Day.
Here's one of those very striking differences: in
public-conference events where OST is an add-on in 1/2 or
full day formats, getting good Proceedings is difficult. Or
impossible. The Proceedings are typically late and poorly
formatted, or more commonly: /non-existent./
Yet inside private events, you can't pull the people off the
task of Proceedings creation. The task attracts them like a
magnet. They typically wave off any offers of help and take
an absolutely huge interest in the Proceedings generation.
They rivet on it.
And this is just one example. There are many more BIG
differences. And so I continue to assert that for
public-conference events where OST is a full day or 1/2 day
add-on, a Barcamp or Unconference can and does get
equivalent, similar, as-good results.
Stated another way, Barcamp and/or Unconference can never do
what Open Space does for organizations. And that's because
Open Space is optimized for enabling "development and
transformation in organizations. "
And those other two aren't.
Daniel
PS I realize some public, paid, Agile conferences that
feature all-day Open Space do a very good job with
Proceedings. Yet this is clearly the exception, and not the
rule where Agile conferences are concerned.
On 10/15/14 11:43 AM, Christine Whitney Sanchez wrote:
Daniel and all,
In my experience, public events have the same buzz and
meaningful results as an in-organization OST. I’ve
facilitated a number of them that were sponsored by a group
of organizations in the community. For instance, Vibrant
Phoenix <http://vibrantphx.com/next-actions/top-ideas/>, was
a very productive economic development OST, sponsored by two
mayors of large municipalities and several local
businesses. One of the business sponsors agreed to be the
contact for folks who wanted to take their “actionable
ideas†to the next level. However, there was no budget
and no infrastructure to really keep folks connected the the
ideas they cared the most about. Â
This is where the public open spaces generally fall short.Â
Because the ongoing action is not the core mission of any of
these organizations, it is hoped that the participants will
self-organize going forward. With very few exceptions,
this does not happen. I believe that sponsorship for the
work after the OST is what is called for.
The Collective Impact
<http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/channeling_change_making_collective_impact_work>Â
model
speaks to this. It’s nothing new, really, but does
represent a simple way to talk about the necessary
conditions for sustaining collective action. I now include
my version of this model when I talk with potential sponsors
to shine the light beyond the meeting so that we can discuss
their intentions for providing backbone support for
self-organized action going forward.
I especially love public Open Space events and look forward
to working with sponsors who see the meeting as merely the
first small step in collaborative action. There is so much
potential!
Warm wishes from a sunny autumn morning in the rain-greened
desert,
Christine
Christine Whitney Sanchez, M.C.
Phoenix, AZ, USA • +1.480.759.0262
www.innovationpartners.com <http://www.innovationpartners.com>Â
Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/ChristineWhitneySanchez>Â |Â
LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/christinewhitneysanchez>Â |Â
Twitter <https://twitter.com/CWhitneySanchez>
On Oct 15, 2014, at 6:33 AM, Daniel Mezick via OSList
<[email protected]> wrote:
Greetings To All,
I notice that there are many big differences between
public-conference-type OST events, and OST events arranged
for organizations.
Do you also notice this? Maybe I am imagining this....just
making stuff up...
...maybe not. In many key dimensions, I experience these
differences as striking. Even disturbing.
And so I have been poking around inside the GUIDE (3rd
edition) and I notice that, in some spots, the implication
is that the discussion is about a public event. Up to page
18 for example, this implication is clear:
<THE GUIDE PAGE 18>
Working With The Client if you ARE NOT the Sponsor
"To this point I have assumed that you (the reader) will be
the sponsor and facilitator of the Open Space, and therefore
*/it is your decision as to whether or not to
proceed/*...(/emphasis added./)
</THE GUIDE PAGE 18>
My current belief is that having the same person in the
Sponsor role **and** the Facilitator role is probably a very
bad idea for an OST event /inside an organization/. For the
typical public-conference event on the other hand, this
seems to work just fine. Kinda like a Barcamp or
Unconference....
Another current belief I hold is that OST is the essential
tool for creating "Development and Transformation in
Organizations". It is best suited for use in organizations.
It is interesting to note how the Barcamp and/or
"Unconference" formats seem to get the same or as-good
results as Open Space, in the public conference setting.
Not so inside organizations! In fact, as of now, I don't
think Barcamp or Unconference has any chance whatsoever at
being effective in bringing about Development and
Transformation in Organizations the way Open Space can.
Something about the Sponsor?
Daniel
--
Daniel Mezick, President
New Technology Solutions Inc.
(203) 915 7248 (cell)
Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog
<http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter
<http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>.Â
Examine my new book:Â The Culture Game
<http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools
for the Agile Manager.
Explore Agile Team Training
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/> and
Coaching. <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>
Explore the Agile Boston
<http://newtechusa.net//user-groups/ma/>Community.Â
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails to [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to
[email protected]
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
--
Daniel Mezick, President
New Technology Solutions Inc.
(203) 915 7248 (cell)
Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog
<http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter
<http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>.Â
Examine my new book:Â The Culture Game
<http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools
for the Agile Manager.
Explore Agile Team Training
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/> and
Coaching. <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>
Explore the Agile Boston
<http://newtechusa.net//user-groups/ma/>Community.Â
--
Â
--
Michael Herman
Michael Herman Associates
312-280-7838 (mobile)
http://MichaelHerman.com
http://OpenSpaceWorld.org
